[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 113 (Thursday, July 29, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6289-H6297]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5850, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND 
    URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011

  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1569 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1569

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5850) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2011, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived except those 
     arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as 
     read through page 171, line 17. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, 
     except as provided in section 2, no amendment shall be in 
     order except: (1) the amendments printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution; and (2) not to exceed four of the amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules if 
     offered by Representative Flake of Arizona or his designee. 
     Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed 
     in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in 
     the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
     for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question. All points of order 
     against such amendments are waived except those arising under 
     clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. In case of sundry amendments reported 
     from the Committee, the question of their adoption shall be 
     put to the House en gros and without division of the 
     question. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  After disposition of the amendments specified in 
     the first section of the resolution, the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their 
     designees each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill 
     for the purpose of debate, which shall be controlled by the 
     proponent.
       Sec. 3.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Appropriations or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 
1569 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all 
points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a 
waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes the 
violation of section 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the 
gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from New York each will 
control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. After 
that debate, the Chair will put the question of consideration as the 
statutory means of disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I raise this point of order today not to 
debate a point of unfunded mandates, although there are probably some 
in the legislation. It is simply the only opportunity that members of 
the minority have to stand up and talk about this process. We are only 
given a minimal amount of time on the rule, itself, and, on the bill, 
just an hour of debate and then amendment debate. Unfortunately, 
although we have had an open process in terms of amendments on 
appropriation bills for as long as any of us can remember--for decades 
and decades and decades--for the last couple of years, we have had 
structured rules come to the floor where members of the minority and 
the majority aren't allowed to offer the amendments that they would 
like.
  Traditionally, Members could offer any amendment as long as it was 
germane and as long as it struck spending from the legislation and it 
was legislated on an appropriation bill. Yet this year and last year, 
for the first time, Members can't bring amendments to the floor. They 
have to submit them to the Rules Committee. Then the Rules Committee 
decides which ones they want to allow on the floor and which ones they 
don't or they will decide, Oh, you've offered 12 amendments, but you 
can only offer four. This limits the ability of the minority, in 
particular, to actually stand up and try to save money in the 
legislation.
  We have to remember that every bill we consider this year, every 
appropriation bill--and unfortunately, probably, we are only going to 
consider two until after the election. Of the ones we consider, 42 
cents of every dollar we spend we are borrowing. We are borrowing 42 
cents of every dollar we are spending for whatever we spend it on.
  Now, I think it is perfectly right and proper to ask: Is this right 
to spend, for example, money on, well, in this case, 461 earmarks in 
this piece of legislation alone? Some of them are for bike paths and 
street beautification. These are all good things, but they have no 
Federal nexus. They shouldn't be paid for by the Federal taxpayer. Yet, 
when we try to bring these amendments to the floor to debate them, only 
a few are allowed. Why is that?
  I would ask if the gentleman representing the Rules Committee can 
explain why this is happening, why in the world we are so hard-pressed 
for time now, apparently, that we can only consider a couple of 
amendments, 22 percent of those that were offered.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, it is clear that this point of order has nothing to do 
with unfunded mandates. Technically, this point of order is about 
whether or not to consider this rule and, ultimately, the underlying 
bill. In reality, it is about preventing the bill from moving forward 
without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an 
up-or-down vote on the legislation, itself. It is about slamming the 
door on the legislative process.
  I think that is wrong, and I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so 
that we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not 
stop it on a procedural motion. Let's stop wasting time on 
parliamentary roadblocks and get to the debate on this legislation, 
itself. It is a very important piece of legislation that has critical 
funding pieces in there for transportation and for housing. Those who 
oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage, but we must 
consider this rule, and we must pass the bill today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, slamming the door on the legislative process. My 
taking 10 minutes to talk about this rule is slamming the door on the 
legislative process.
  How is that?
  What I am here to talk about is how the door has been slammed on the 
legislative process. The inability of Members to come and offer 
amendments to appropriation bills to try and save money is what is 
slamming the door on the legislative process. It has nothing to do with 
somebody's standing up and claiming time to speak against the rule.
  So that is just baffling to me and to anybody out there, listening, 
when they learn that I offered 11 amendments. There were 461 earmarks 
which

[[Page H6290]]

were costing nearly $330 million. I should note, this year, Republicans 
have taken a moratorium. So, of those 461 earmarks, only six were 
sponsored by Republican Members--six out of 431. I commend my 
Republican colleagues for the position that has been taken this year.
  Let me just read a list of the ones that I will be challenging today:
  I was allowed to choose four out of the 11 I submitted. Now, I could 
have submitted a lot more and could have tried to have been dilatory 
about this, but I said, I'll offer just as many as I would if that were 
the number that I could actually offer coming to the floor. But I was 
only allowed four.

                              {time}  1040

  I should mention many of my Republican colleagues who offered earmark 
amendments were not given any, not any. Some of them had a great case 
to make here. They would have asked, for example, why it is that 
certain Members requested, say, $4 million for an earmark and got more 
than that, actually, given to them.
  Why is it, if you take the position that some Members take, that, 
hey, I know my district better than anybody else, better than those 
faceless bureaucrats we always hear about in the bureaucracy, so I need 
$4 million for this bike path or whatever, and you get $5 million, how 
is that? That's a good question to ask. It would have been nice to get 
the answer for that, but we won't be able to because those Members were 
denied the ability to come down and offer their amendments.
  I'll be offering amendments to strike funding, for example, for the 
Blackstone River Bikeway in Rhode Island. It might be a good bikeway. 
They might need it there. But I can tell you, the Federal Government 
doesn't need to pay for it. The Federal taxpayer doesn't need to pay 
for it, especially when we're spending 42 cents of every dollar--we're 
borrowing, I'm sorry, 42 cents for every dollar we spend.
  I would challenge any Member who will vote against my amendment to 
strike funding from the Blackstone River Bikeway in Rhode Island to go 
home and say, with a straight face to their constituents, yes, I think 
it's proper that we borrow 42 cents from either the Chinese or from 
your kids or grandkids because we can't pay for it now, for the Federal 
Government to pay for a bikeway in Rhode Island.
  Or for downtown Tacoma streetscapes, a downtown Tacoma streetscape 
improvement project in Washington. Why in the world should, in this 
case, a powerful member of the Appropriations Committee be able to get 
an earmark to pay for downtown Tacoma streetscapes?
  Again, we're borrowing 42 cents for every dollar we spend there. Go 
home to your constituents, I dare you, and say, yes, I voted to uphold, 
to keep that earmark in there. It was so important that we got the 
downtown Tacoma streetscape project that we're borrowing 42 cents from 
your kids and grandkids to pay for, just so I can go home to my 
constituents and say, hey, I bring home the bacon.
  Or the restoration and improvements to the historic Darwin Martin 
House Home and Complex. Now, it might be good. Why is the taxpayer 
paying, through the Federal Government, and borrowing 42 cents on every 
dollar to do that?
  Or the construction of a children's playground. It might be a good 
playground, the children might need it somewhere, but it's not the 
Federal Government's responsibility. And go home to your constituents, 
I dare you today, anybody who votes to strike my amendment or votes my 
amendment down to strike that funding, go home and explain why in the 
world we need construction of a children's playground and borrow, those 
kids who are going to be playing on it, borrow their money because we 
can't pay for it now. But it's so important for us to go home and say I 
brought home the bacon that we're going to approve that earmark.
  Let me tell you another reason why we can't reform this process very 
easily. This chart will show you the appropriations process this year. 
And it looks, people have said, like a PAC-MAN chart. But the red there 
is the percentage of earmark dollars that are associated with powerful 
Members of Congress. Those are either appropriators, or those who chair 
committees, or those who are in leadership positions. That makes up 
about 13 percent of the body.
  In this bill today, and this is one of the lower ones, 42 percent of 
the earmark dollars are going to just 13 percent of the Members of this 
body.
  Now, for those who say, hey, we're here to earmark because we know 
our constituents better. We know our district better than those 
faceless bureaucrats, apparently you only know your district if you're 
a powerful Member or you're a member of the Appropriations Committee. 
That seems to be the determiner of whether or not you know your 
district. And I just don't think that's right.
  I said earlier in a 1-minute something, and I was wrong and I want to 
confess that. I said that it takes 10 minutes to debate a suspension 
bill. And in that same 10 minutes of debating a suspension bill we 
could debate an amendment, an amendment takes 10 minutes.
  I was wrong. It takes 40 minutes; 40 minutes are allotted to debate 
suspension bills. So we could actually debate four amendments for the 
time that it takes to debate one suspension bill.
  And let me remind those who are watching what a suspension bill is. 
It's a bill that doesn't go through the regular process. It's brought 
to the floor because it's typically noncontroversial.
  This year we've done a lot of suspension bills. We have recognized 
the important role of pollinators, as I mentioned, H.R. 1460.
  We spent 40 minutes supporting the goals and ideals of Railroad 
Retirement Day.
  We spent 40 minutes supporting the goals of National Dairy Month. 
Those might be good things, but we don't need to spend 40 minutes 
debating on the floor the goals and ideals of National Dairy Day, or 
supporting the goals and ideals of American Craft Beer week, or 
congratulating the Chicago Blackhawks, spending 40 minutes there, when 
every 40 minutes you spend apparently is 10 minutes, or 10 times 4, 
that we don't do amendments here on appropriation bills.
  So the notion that we're running out of time, somehow, and we don't 
have time to do appropriation bills, typically, the months of June and 
July are reserved mostly to do appropriation bills. This is only the 
second appropriations bill we've done. We've done the last one 
yesterday. We're going to start and finish this one today.
  In years past, we've taken sometimes 3 or 4 days to do one 
appropriation bill. That's perhaps as it should be because this is 
important. We're spending a lot of money here. That's what Congress 
does. But we ought to take care, and we ought to allow Members who have 
amendments to try to save the taxpayer money to actually offer them.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all Members that 
remarks should be directed to the Chair and not to the television 
audience.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, it's clear that this point of order has 
nothing to do with unfunded mandates. My friend from Arizona talks 
about the inability to make any amendments, and yet he talked about 
four amendments that he would be offering today. So, clearly, he will 
have an opportunity to make his points.
  Again, I would just say that this point of order has nothing 
whatsoever to do with unfunded mandates. And I want to urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to consider so that we can 
debate and pass this important piece of legislation today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order will be disposed of by 
the question of consideration.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

[[Page H6291]]

be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 1569.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1569 provides a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 5850, the Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 2011. The rule 
provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule waives 
all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the 
amendments printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution, not to exceed four amendments printed in 
part B of the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by 
Representative Flake of Arizona or his designee.
  All points of order against the amendments except for clause 9 and 10 
of rule XXI are waived. The rule provides that for those amendments 
reported from the Committee of the Whole, the question of their 
adoption shall be put to the House en gros and without division of the 
question.
  The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.

                              {time}  1050

  The rule provides that after disposition of amendments, the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations each may 
offer one pro forma amendment to the bill for purpose of debate, which 
shall be controlled by the proponent. The Chair may entertain a motion 
that the committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
on Appropriations or his designee. Finally, the rule provides the Chair 
may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
bill.
  Madam Speaker, I rise as a member of the Rules Committee and also as 
a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in strong 
support of H.R. 5850, the fiscal year 2011 Transportation-HUD 
Appropriations Act, because housing and transportation are two areas 
that must be priorities, especially in tough economic times such as we 
are in, because we get the double return on our investment. As we have 
seen with the recovery bill, investment in infrastructure not only 
generates economic recovery by putting people back to work, but those 
construction jobs strengthen our transportation system and improve our 
housing stock. They make our roads safer, our bridges safer for our 
families and our friends and our constituents to travel on.
  The Transportation-HUD appropriations bill continues this investment 
and our commitment to using all the tools available to continue the 
economic recovery that has taken hold. It is also important to note 
that the legislation continues these important programs, but in a 
fiscally responsible way. Overall, the bill spends $500 million less 
than was appropriated during the current fiscal year. The amount 
provided overall is $1.3 billion below the President's request.
  I commend the committee for its work in crafting a bill that spends 
less overall and still manages to increase the funds available for key 
programs that are at the heart of our Nation's economic recovery. The 
committee has done so by scaling back spending on other programs, which 
is never popular or easy, but is the right thing to do.
  Included in H.R. 5850 is $45.2 billion to improve and repair our 
Nation's aging highway infrastructure. The bill includes more than 
$11.3 billion for the Federal Transit Administration, which will 
support bus and rail projects, and an estimated 20,000 additional jobs 
for transit workers nationwide. This not only provides more 
transportation options to Americans during tough economic times, it 
also decreases traffic congestion, reduces our dependence on foreign 
oil and greenhouse gas emissions, and makes our roads safer for 
commuters.
  This bill adds another $1.4 billion to continue developing and 
building a national system of high speed rail. High speed rail moves 
more people at a lower cost, at a faster speed, and with less impact on 
our environment than road transportation. We have developed the most 
advanced highway and aviation systems in the world over the last 60 
years, but in comparison to the rail systems in other nations such as 
Germany, France, and even China, we have clearly fallen behind. This 
bill continues our commitment to correcting that situation and 
developing a robust national intercity rail network.
  Related to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, H.R. 5850 
makes critical investments to help communities continue to address the 
fallout from the housing and foreclosure crisis that we see nationwide. 
The bill provides communities with the tools they need to build, 
purchase, or rent affordable housing. It provides rental assistance to 
low-income families, homeless veterans, and other at-risk groups, and 
supplies funding for repairs and renovation of affordable housing 
across America.
  The bill provides $4 billion for the Community Development Block 
Grant program, which sends funding directly to local governments for 
projects that address housing, social services, and other economic 
challenges in their communities.
  Madam Speaker, this is just a sample of the important programs and 
initiatives that the Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act will fund in 
fiscal year 2011. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to 
thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), for the 
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to take a minute first to thank Cesar Gonzalez. He is my 
rules associate, general counsel, legislative director. This is the 
last rule we are going to be working on together. Congressman Mario 
Diaz-Balart, who is aware of Cesar's talent, has made what I consider a 
very wise decision in hiring Cesar as his chief of staff. So we are not 
going to be working on rules together, but we will always be friends. 
And I am deeply grateful for his friendship and for the extraordinary 
assistance that he has given to me and our office and our constituents 
during all of the time that he has honored us by working with us. So 
Cesar, thank you.
  Madam Speaker, yesterday the majority brought to this floor the first 
fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill. I know it's almost August, but 
that's the case. The first appropriations bill was brought to the floor 
yesterday by the majority. And they brought it forth under a 
restrictive process that blocks Members on both sides of the aisle from 
introducing amendments. And today the majority continues that process, 
that unfortunate process, with yet another restrictive rule, this time 
on the second appropriations bill that they are bringing to the floor, 
the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations 
bill. And they bring it forth with a rule that allows 24 of the 108 
amendments that were submitted to be debated. That's 22 percent of the 
amendments submitted.
  As you know, Madam Speaker, that used to not be the case. Always 
throughout the history of the Republic, appropriations bills have been 
brought forth under open rules. And you know, Madam Speaker, we have 
been here for some years now, sometimes the process of debate on 
appropriations bills got unruly and long and frustrating. But that's 
the way democracy's supposed to work.
  So the way that for centuries we've worked out that process, Congress 
has worked out that process, is that, you know, the chairman and the 
ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee on the floor, after a 
while, after days, they come together with a unanimous consent 
agreement and they limit debate. The Congress, we limit debate by 
unanimous consent. That's the way it's worked out. You know, you don't 
close the process at the beginning--at least we didn't before. Starting 
last year, this majority decided to, however. And that's unfortunate.
  Now, under the traditional process that was followed since the 
beginning

[[Page H6292]]

of the Republic, no one from the majority leadership or the Rules 
Committee got to pick and choose what amendments the House could debate 
on appropriations bills as long as they were germane. In other words, 
as long as they were connected, the issue was connected to the bill at 
hand.
  Now, that's what an open rule is, an open process. And as I say, it's 
been the tradition of the Congress of the United States to debate 
appropriations bills under an open process, under open rules. I outline 
what an open rule is because it's been so long since the House has 
considered an open rule. And I am sorry for our new Members, because 
they have never experienced an open rule. But that's why I outlined 
what an open rule process is.
  The last time we saw one on an appropriations bill was July 31, 2007, 
almost exactly 3 years ago to the day. Even on that bill the majority 
then came back and closed the process. But at least they initially came 
to the floor with an open rule 3 years ago on an appropriations bill.
  For a nonappropriations bill, February 8, 2007, the month after they 
took the majority. That was their last open rule, the last open rule 
that this majority permitted to the Membership in this Congress. You 
know, that's sad. But especially it's unnecessary. But there is 
extraordinary power in the majority, obviously, and our friends on the 
majority side are showing us every day. They exercise that power. You 
know, it's a record that no one should be proud of, but it is the 
legacy of this majority.

                              {time}  1100

  Now, what is the reason for the majority to use such a restrictive 
process? Last year they told us that it was to curb the consideration 
of amendments in order to move the process forward in a timely manner 
because they wanted to avoid an omnibus appropriations bill, but they 
didn't. We still had an omnibus appropriations bill and it was 2 weeks 
before Christmas.
  As I said last year, as I said yesterday, as I say now, this process 
is unjust and it's unnecessary. It was a mistake last year. It was a 
mistake yesterday. It's a mistake today. It's a colossal mistake that 
the majority will come to regret.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in allowing me 
to speak on this rule.
  Madam Speaker, embedded here in this legislation for Transportation-
HUD is the Livable Communities Initiative, a visionary, popular, and 
important program of the administration. In fact, however, it began in 
the last Congress where the subcommittee of Transportation and HUD, 
under the leadership of Chairman Olver, promoted these initiatives. It 
was also part of a partnership with Mr. Oberstar, the chair of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who has long championed 
these efforts to have the Federal Government be a better partner 
working with communities on critical areas of transportation and 
housing.
  This bill has built on this approach. It has taken critical elements 
that strengthen community, revitalize the economy, and help protect the 
planet.
  I must, however, speak against a couple of ill-advised attacks on the 
livable communities program of the administration. In particular, there 
is an amendment by my friend and colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
that would strip out of transportation elements of livability. The 
irony is that the reauthorization that Mr. DeFazio is working on--which 
we all hope will happen sooner rather than later--actually will promote 
a number of these approaches. And the money that he would strip out 
would actually have gone to help get a head start on the important 
program that actually will be a part of the legislation that I am 
confident will be produced by his subcommittee and, ultimately, by the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  These are not areas that are insignificant. There is great public 
support. For example, the TIGER grants received 40 times more requests 
than the administration had money for. And I must point out that this 
is not taking any money away from the transportation trust fund 
because, if it's not authorized, it comes from the general fund.
  Equally sad, and I think misguided, is an amendment offered by my 
colleagues Peters, Adler, Himes, and Welch that would strike or reduce 
funding for a number of critical programs where the committee has 
adjusted it even above what the administration requested. These are 
programs for high-speed rail, infrastructure investment grants, HOPE 
VI, Brownfield redevelopment, railroad safety technology, Veterans 
Affairs-supported housing. I mean, I could go on. Time doesn't permit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. These are precisely the types of programs that we 
should be concentrating on because they stretch dollars, because they 
help promote the activities back on the ground in our districts, and, 
in fact, they are supported by the people who sent us here in the first 
place. I would strongly recommend that my colleagues look carefully at 
these provisions.
  What Chairman Olver and his subcommittee have done is to rebalance 
efforts that were offered by the administration. In some cases, they 
were reduced; in some cases, they were increased. But there is a 
package here that will make a difference for every community, rural and 
urban, from coast to coast, making the Federal Government a better 
partner, promoting the livability of our communities where every family 
is safer, healthier, and more economically secure.
  While I will support the rule, I strongly urge, if these two 
amendments are offered, that they be rejected.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure 
to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Georgia, my classmate--it's 
amazing how the years have passed--John Linder.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
order the previous question. I oppose it so that the minority might 
have the opportunity to offer legislation that has been endorsed by the 
American people through the YouCut program, legislation that is 
strongly supported by Members on both sides of the aisle. That 
legislation is H.R. 5885, a bill introduced to terminate the advance 
earned income tax credit, saving American taxpayers more than $1 
billion over the next decade.
  An August 10, 2007, report by the GAO revealed significant 
noncompliance and fraud with the advance EITC. The GAO found that 20 
percent of the recipients did not have a valid Social Security number, 
almost 40 percent of the recipients did not file a tax return, and 80 
percent of the recipients failed to comply with at least one program 
requirement. And yet, despite evidence of significant fraud, abuse, and 
general non-compliance, GAO found that only 3 percent of the EITC-
eligible individuals used the advance option.
  Given the low level of utilization and the high error rates among 
those who do use it, several members of the majority party have 
proposed to terminate the advance EITC option. President Obama has 
promised to repeal it in both of his annual budgets. Earlier this week, 
Senator Reid included repeal as an offset in the small business bill on 
the Senate floor. And last week, four of our Democrat colleagues here 
in the House introduced deficit reduction legislation that included the 
very same language on repealing the advance EITC that is the subject of 
my legislation.
  Republicans agree with our Democrat colleagues that the advance EITC 
is a waste of taxpayer money and should be terminated. I ask my 
colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we may consider this 
legislation on the floor today.
  Mr. ARCURI. I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure 
to yield 4 minutes to the great leader from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-advised rule. Number 
one, we

[[Page H6293]]

have a rule that is allowing us to somehow consider an appropriations 
bill before we even have a budget. There is no budget, Madam Speaker. 
My friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, don't even 
want a speed bump as they drive down the road to national bankruptcy.
  We're supposed to have a budget before we have appropriations bills. 
And, in fact, I think the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee 
said it best when he said, If you can't budget, you can't govern. Well, 
according to the House Budget Committee, clearly the Democrats cannot 
govern.
  This year will mark the first time in history that the House has 
failed to even consider, much less pass, a budget, and yet we have a 
rule allowing us to spend yet more of the people's money.
  It also marks the second year in a row where the Democrats have 
chosen to bring these bills under closed rules. I, myself, had six 
different amendments. And when we're spending the people's money, the 
people's representatives ought to be heard. None of my six amendments 
will be heard, Madam Speaker, because the Rules Committee decided they 
would have a closed rule and they didn't want to hear from my 
amendments.

                              {time}  1110

  So had I had an opportunity, Madam Speaker, I believe that the 
American people need to continue to focus on this practice of 
earmarking. The Republicans have taken an earmark moratorium. We said, 
you know what, the process is broken. Now, not every earmark is bad, 
Madam Speaker, but the process is broken, and yet the Democrats 
continue to bring them.
  And had I had an opportunity, I would have brought an amendment 
saying, you know what, maybe we should strike the earmark that the 
Budget Committee chairman, Chairman Spratt, has for a neighborhood 
community center in York County, South Carolina. I have no doubt that 
good things can be done with that money, Madam Speaker, but does the 
chairman of the Budget Committee and does this body really believe it's 
worth borrowing 41 cents on the dollar, mainly from the Chinese, and 
sending the bill to our children and grandchildren? I hope not. But 
this body will not be able to work its will.
  I would have introduced an amendment to strike the earmark of the 
gentlelady from Ohio, Representative Kilroy, who thought it was worth 
borrowing 41 cents on the dollar, mainly from the Chinese, and to bill 
to our children and grandchildren, to put in the Columbus Bicentennial 
Bikeways-West Side Improvement in Columbus, Ohio.
  Madam Speaker, at some point the American people want to know: does 
their President, does their Congress, what part of broke don't they 
understand? Earmark after earmark after earmark, and I could go through 
the list that I tried to offer, but unfortunately can't offer under 
this closed rule, and funny, it seems to give the impression that the 
earmarks are being allowed for the senior Members of the Democratic 
leadership and those who have very challenging races come November. I 
have no doubt it is a coincidence but here it is; yet, no amendments 
can be offered.
  When the gentleman from New York said he's bringing a rule that will 
allow us to debate a fiscally responsible bill, he failed to note it is 
38.1 percent above the 2008 level. I mean, this is part of the spending 
spree that is bankrupting America. He conveniently only looks on a one-
term basis; yet, the American people have to pay on a multiyear basis.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 1 
additional minute.
  Mr. HENSARLING. You would think, Madam Speaker, after this President 
and this Congress increased what we call non-defense discretionary 
spending, which is really garden variety government, not the 
entitlement programs, not the Pentagon, has increased 84 percent in 
just 2 years, at what point do you say enough is enough? And that's why 
Republicans every week are bringing forth another proposal under the 
YouCut program to say, let's start saving some money.
  So as you heard from the gentleman from Georgia, this week is the 
advanced earned income tax credit, frankly brought by a Democrat who 
now apparently has decided to abandon his own child and make it an 
orphan. But this is a program that could save taxpayers $1.1 billion.
  We need to vote down the rule, vote down the previous question. Allow 
us today to make one small saving, again at least one small speed bump 
on the road to national bankruptcy brought courtesy of our friends on 
the other side of the aisle.
  Reject the rule.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to thank the Rules Committee and Chairwoman Slaughter for 
making my amendment in order, which was referenced by my good friend 
and colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) earlier.
  We need a new transportation policy for this country. We need a 21st 
century transportation policy. We're living under the Bush-era 
priorities and policies and inadequate funding. We have a system with 
150,000 bridges that are weight-limited or functionally obsolete. We 
have transit systems across the country that have an $80 billion 
backlog just to be in a state of good repair, let alone building out 
new transit options for Americans. People are dying because of that 
capital backlog. They're dying right here in the Nation's capital where 
they're running obsolete, crummy, old rail cars that aren't safe.
  We have a transportation crisis, and I've written a bill, along with 
Chairman Oberstar, that will address more robustly than a provision 
stuck in here by the Appropriations Committee the issues of livability 
and planning in a coordinated way for a better transportation future, 
more options for people who live in congested metropolitan areas. But 
tell you what, if you take and create that with, say, $200 million--and 
my colleague was wrong; it is $200 million that comes out of the trust 
fund. That means it's $200 million that we don't have to help deal with 
those 150,000 bridges that need to be repaired or replaced. That's a 
lot of money, and it would be kind of like putting a great, new, shiny 
coat of paint on an old jalopy that's riddled with rust and burning oil 
by the quart every time you drive it. That's what will happen if you 
create this office of livability.
  This administration, who has not seen fit to even send down one iota 
of policy for a transportation bill that was due last October--and they 
keep saying, oh, we're getting to it, we'll get you some ideas soon, 
we're working on it, it's a very high priority, the President is a 
really big infrastructure guy: well, where's the dough? Where's the 
policy? Nothing.
  Now, they do want to cherry-pick. They want this office of livability 
and then they can tout that through the next election and we'll never 
get a transportation bill. We can't let them cherry-pick. If they want 
to come down and talk about the comprehensive approach I've taken in my 
bill for livability, congestion management, new transit options, 21st 
century policy of transportation that takes into account livability, 
quality of life, economic development, congestion, reducing fuels, 
waste and all those things, let's have that conversation. But guess 
what, we're going to have to invest a little bit more money to do it.
  This administration is petrified. It's like all the options I've sent 
them, tax the oil industry, tax oil speculators, a whole bunch of 
things, they won't even begin the discussion, and if my colleague leads 
a successful fight against this amendment today, we will never have 
that discussion during the term of this President, never.
  So I've got to urge in the strongest words possible to my colleagues.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. If you care about a new 21st century transportation 
policy, if you care about the fact that the United States of America is 
falling behind because of the state of disrepair of our system, the 
delays for our businesses and industry, the lack of competitiveness 
because of that system, if

[[Page H6294]]

we look at what our competitors are doing to build out new systems and 
efficient systems, if you care about those things, you will vote for my 
amendment. Strip the $200 million from an unauthorized program. 
Remember, this is an appropriations bill. You're not supposed to create 
new programs or authorize things. All we say is, it's subject to 
authorization. That is why I'm happy to look at the $200 million or 
even more for an office of livability in an authorizing bill.
  Let's have a meaningful discussion. Let's get it done. Don't let the 
administration cherry-pick and end-run us.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the 
Republican whip.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and ask that finally 
we in this House turn towards the matter of such concern to the 
American people, and that is, the growth, incredible growth, in size of 
Washington and its government.
  With 1.5 million votes cast, Madam Speaker, the YouCut movement 
continues to give Americans a vehicle to help put a stop to 
Washington's never-ending shopping spree. House Republicans have 
already offered more than $120 billion in commonsense budget cuts. Yet, 
week in and week out, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have voted against the will of the people and blocked these commonsense 
spending reductions.
  Madam Speaker, maybe today is the day when that changes. This week's 
leading vote-getter is a proposal sponsored by Congressman John Linder 
of Georgia. It would save the taxpayers $1.1 billion by eliminating the 
advanced earned income tax credit, a program plagued by waste, fraud 
and abuse.
  The idea was first put forward by our friends on the other side of 
the aisle, Madam Speaker, and for many of us in the minority, it was 
heartening to see our colleague in the Democratic Caucus embracing the 
commonsense spending cuts that this Congress so persistently refused.

                              {time}  1120

  Addressing our staggering national debt is not a partisan calling. It 
is a national imperative because our country stands at a crossroads.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to vote to bring this week's YouCut proposal to the floor.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 16 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Florida has 15\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, the previous speaker had a cute poster 
showing Uncle Sam talking about cuts, and we know that we have a long-
term deficit issue to deal with.
  But I think it's appropriate to look at the numbers, and the simple 
numbers are things that we ought to be able to agree on in a bipartisan 
basis. The numbers show that this year's bill that we will pass today 
spends $500 million, $500 million less than last year's bill. I want to 
repeat that, $500 million cut compared to last year's bill.
  We are aware of the situation, and we are reducing this expenditure 
by $500 million. That's the math. It should be bipartisan math, and 
there is no question about it no matter what kinds of pictures you want 
to bring out on your posters.
  But I also want to point out this bill does some things that are 
smart, looking to our future.
  Number one, it makes an investment in trying to move to cleaner 
aviation fuels so that we can reduce carbon pollution from our air 
aviation industry to invest in biofuels. We just flew the first algae-
based biofuel Green Hornet, an Air Force F-18, at supersonic speeds. We 
think we can replace a significant number of fossil fuels with green 
fuels. This makes an investment.
  Second, this bill makes an investment in moving to the 
electrification of our transportation system. Americans, for the first 
time, are now going to be able to buy American-made cars that run on 
electric engines. We need a place to plug them in. This bill helps to 
move having plug-in stations.
  We are starting that effort on the I-5 corridor up in the State of 
Washington and Oregon. This bill will extend those efforts to work with 
local communities so Americans will have a choice to buy American-made 
electric-powered propulsion systems, plug them in with American made 
plug-in stations. This is a vision for the future.
  We are starting with cuts to this bill and moving with targeted 
investment to move to the next generation of vehicles. It's a good plan 
for America.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. It's my privilege, Madam Speaker, 
to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I urge the House to defeat the previous 
question on the rule so we can vote to end the advanced Earned Income 
Tax Credit. This year, the Federal Government is running a $1.5 
trillion deficit with 43 cents of every dollar we are spending being 
borrowed money.
  The American people want us to get spending under control and the 
Republican YouCut initiative enables the American people to actually 
vote on specific spending cuts. This week YouCut participants have 
asked Congress to consider eliminating the advanced EITC. A Government 
Accountability Office report found that the advanced EITC is unpopular 
with eligible taxpayers and disproportionately subject to fraud, with 
20 percent of the claimants lacking even a valid Social Security 
number.
  Repealing the advance option would not affect low-income workers' 
eligibility for the EITC, but it would save taxpayers--not the $500 
million that is less than the last budget, as my friend Washington just 
stated, but double that, more than double that, $1.1 billion by cutting 
down on fraud and abuse.
  Madam Speaker, this is a bipartisan measure. In fact, President Obama 
included it in his budget for this year. By taking up this commonsense 
proposal, we can cut more than a billion dollars' worth of fraud out of 
the Federal budget.
  Let's take this opportunity to show the American people that Congress 
is finally serious about tackling the deficit. Vote ``no'' on the 
previous question.
  Mr. ARCURI. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure 
to yield 2 minutes to the great leader from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, the American people are very 
concerned about out-of-control Washington spending, and they are 
demanding action.
  Over the last several months, the Republican Conference has engaged 
the American people in this effort through our YouCut program, and we 
have offered literally tens of billions of dollars in cuts, and all of 
those cuts have been rejected by the Democrat majority.
  Today we are going to offer another cut, and this one is so rife with 
abuse that it has even been identified by a Democrat working group as a 
commonsense cut that will help to reduce the deficit.
  The Democrat leadership has not offered an opportunity to make this 
cut, but the Republican Conference will. Here is a chance for many of 
our Democrat friends to stand up and put their votes where their 
rhetoric has been.
  Today they are either going to hide behind their leadership on 
procedural grounds and oppose this commonsense cut that many of them 
have publicly supported, or they are going to stand with the American 
people and join us in beginning the process of bringing this deficit 
under control.
  The proof is in the vote. No hiding, no excuses, no more rhetoric. We 
are calling their bluff.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question and let's start cutting this 
out-of-control Federal deficit and Federal spending.
  Mr. ARCURI. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is a privilege 
to yield 2 minutes to my friend from the Rules Committee, the leader 
from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

[[Page H6295]]

  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding time.
  Madam Speaker, I sat in the Rules Committee yesterday and heard from 
our colleagues on both sides of the aisle about this bill.
  I was really struck by something, Madam Speaker. I was struck by the 
fact that many of our colleagues across the aisle have obviously been 
on the road to Damascus lately because all of a sudden, after running 
up the largest deficit in the history of this country, as my colleagues 
before me have said, we are borrowing 43 cents for every dollar we 
spend, we have a $1.5 trillion deficit. After helping to do that, 
suddenly we see Democrat amendments to cut spending.
  Obviously, some people on the other side of the aisle are paying 
attention to what most of the American people are saying. In fact, 95 
percent of the people in my district think that spending is the biggest 
problem facing this country.
  There were 31 Democrat amendments offered, 12 of them cut spending. 
Five of those amendments to cut spending were made in order.
  Again, Madam Speaker, I think this is a very cynical, very cynical 
ploy, one of many practiced by colleagues across the aisle to make it 
look like they are doing something that they aren't, which is to pay 
attention to cutting spending.
  We need to vote down this rule. We need to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question, and we need to bring back serious issues where we 
are cutting spending and listening to the American people.
  Mr. ARCURI. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes 
to my dear friend from California, the ranking member, Mr. Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my good friend from Miami for his typical, 
spectacular job.
  I have to say, as I stand here I am thinking about the fact that 
there are probably not going to be too many more opportunities for him 
to be here as we look towards the waning weeks of this Congress. I want 
to say that it's been a wonderful privilege for me to serve with him.

                              {time}  1130

  He has done such an important job, and of course is best known for 
being a champion in the struggle for freedom and democracy and 
opportunity for people, especially in this hemisphere. I just thought 
about that when I stood up, so I would like to say that as I begin my 
remarks.
  It's also rather sad, Madam Speaker, that my friend has to preside 
over a rule which has this institution moving in the direction of more 
restrictions, more control, less liberty, and less opportunity. That is 
exactly what we've seen happen in the past year, especially when it 
comes to the appropriations process.
  By tradition, appropriations have been sacrosanct when it comes to 
the amendment process. We have had people who have had amendments that 
I would vigorously disagree with, and we always, always allowed for an 
open amendment process, with only one or two exceptions, and that was 
usually done when there was a bipartisan consensus to have some kind of 
structure to an appropriations debate. But now it has tragically, with 
what took place last year and what is taking place now, become the norm 
for us to shut down the opportunity for the American people--the 
American people--to be heard through their elected representatives, 
denying both Democrats and Republicans alike the opportunity to 
participate.
  I note that there are some new members of the Rules Committee, lots 
of new Members of this institution, and Madam Speaker, I don't know 
exactly what the numbers are, but there are people who have never once 
witnessed the United States House of Representatives, the People's 
House, engaging in an open rule debate. Now, why is it so important for 
us to pursue openness on this? Because, as my friend from Grandfather 
Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) just said, the priority of her 
constituents--and I believe most Americans, certainly the people whom I 
represent in California--is the need for us to reduce the size and 
scope and reach of government so that we can create jobs and create 
individual initiative and responsibility. And we are denying Democrats 
and Republicans alike the chance to offer these amendments through the 
open amendment process.
  For example, two of my very distinguished, hardworking colleagues who 
have been in the forefront in the quest to reduce spending, my 
California colleague, Mr. Campbell, and our Texas colleague, Mr. 
Hensarling, both were denied an opportunity to offer amendments. Now if 
we had had an open amendment process, they would be able to offer their 
amendments that would bring about reductions in spending so that we can 
get our economy back on track and exercise the kind of fiscal restraint 
which is essential if we are going to succeed.
  So Madam Speaker, that is why we are going to encourage--my colleague 
will in just a moment--defeat of the previous question so that we can 
bring about a proposal that will allow us to cut spending under our 
YouCut program, the proposal that Mr. Linder has brought forward. And 
we also want to defeat this rule.
  I was just reminded by one of our staff members that this may be the 
last appropriations bill that we consider. Guess what number it is of 
the 12? It's the second appropriations bill. And yet the Appropriations 
Committee has not even engaged in markups that were promised. We have 
gone well beyond the deadline. As we all know, for the first time since 
the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act was implemented, we have 
not had a budget resolution here in the House of Representatives.
  So being promised the most open Congress in history is something that 
has clearly been thrown out the window, Madam Speaker. I hope very much 
that we will be able to defeat the previous question so we can have a 
chance to vote to cut spending, and then defeat this rule and come down 
with a process that will allow Democrats and Republicans to carry the 
voice of the American people to the floor of this institution.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend from New York 
once again for his courtesy. I think this has been a good debate.
  Madam Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, the Congressional Budget 
Office released a report titled ``Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal 
Crisis.'' The report sounded an alarm on the Federal Government's out-
of-control debt and the consequences if we fail to address the debt. It 
said, ``Growing budget deficits will cause debt to rise to 
unsupportable levels.'' And we are seeing in other countries in the 
world that this is not a theoretical problem. I mean, this is a very 
serious, practical problem that can devastate countries and truly hurt 
people. And so we have to realize that as a Nation we have to change 
course. I know that is going to require bipartisanship, and I hope that 
we see it soon, but we're not seeing it yet, and it's very worrisome. 
On the contrary, the path we are on is, as the Congressional Budget 
Office has said, not supportable.
  So one way to help reign in Federal spending--and of course none of 
this is going to be pleasant, but it's necessary, and I know that 
action that's required is approaching because it is necessary--but one 
way is to cut spending that is not absolutely necessary, that can be 
considered wasteful.
  Over the last week, participants in Minority Whip Cantor's YouCut 
initiative voted on programs for us to bring to this floor for cutting. 
To date, participants in that program have voted to cut $120 billion in 
spending. This week, the participants in that program voted to cut the 
Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit program. That program allows eligible 
taxpayers to receive a portion of their earned income tax throughout 
the year in their paychecks. There was a recent audit of the program 
that found that 80 percent of the recipients did not comply with at 
least one program requirement, another 20 percent had invalid Social 
Security numbers and thus may not have been eligible for the credit, 
and 40 percent failed to file the annual tax return required to 
reconcile the credit. Suffice it to say that, as a result, the program 
is susceptible to waste and abuse, and cutting it would save more than 
$1 billion.

[[Page H6296]]

  So I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question 
so that we can have a vote on that issue, on cutting the Advanced 
Earned Income Tax Credit program. I would like to remind the membership 
that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not preclude 
consideration of the underlying legislation before us today, the 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I would like to say thank you to the 
gentleman from Florida for his handling of this rule. It is always a 
pleasure to participate in a debate on a rule on the floor with you, 
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
  Madam Speaker, we heard a lot today. And I think it was very 
interesting to listen to the debate go back and forth, and certainly 
from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who talked a great 
deal about spending. Clearly, spending is one of the most important 
issues that we are dealing with here in Congress.
  In particular, my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Ms. 
Foxx, talked about the fact that it is--I think she said--``the most 
important issue that faces Congress.''

                              {time}  1140

  I would say that it clearly is one of the most important issues that 
faces Congress, but when you talk to people, when you talk to 
Americans, they think that the most significant issue that we in 
Congress need to deal with is the economy--it is jobs; it is putting 
people back to work, and equally important, it is making sure that the 
people who do have jobs continue to have jobs.
  I think this bill really is indicative of what the Democrats are 
trying to do. We recognize the fact that it is necessary to begin to 
make cuts. That is why this bill has cut $500 million from the amount 
that we spent last year. On the other hand, when you listen to 
economists, they are very clear in saying that we have to be careful in 
how quickly and how drastically we make cuts because we are starting to 
see the economy turn around. If we make draconian cuts and if we make 
cuts too quickly, it will stand to jeopardize the recovery that is 
beginning to take hold, that is beginning to take foot.
  So I think this bill takes exactly the right approach in terms of 
beginning to cut but not doing it in such a drastic way that we will 
affect or detrimentally hurt the recovery that is beginning to take 
effect. The Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act funds some of the 
most important initiatives that pay for everything from roads, bridges, 
and railroads to housing for veterans and low-income families.
  In my opening remarks, I discussed the critical investments that this 
bill makes in our transportation system. The bill also invests in 
housing programs for vulnerable populations, including retirees, people 
with disabilities, veterans, and even children.
  The funding is even more essential during these very tough economic 
times. The bill includes funding to address the problem of homelessness 
among our veterans. All too often, men and women who sacrifice the most 
for our freedoms are hit the hardest in tough economic times. We owe 
our veterans the utmost respect and gratitude for their service, and we 
must honor the commitment made to them. They should not have to return 
home to be confronted by the possibility of poverty or homelessness.
  To address this, H.R. 5850 includes funding for an additional 10,000 
vouchers through the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program, 
administrated by HUD, in conjunction with the Veterans Administration.
  H.R. 5850 includes another $825 million to rehabilitate and to build 
new housing for low-income seniors. Currently, there are 10 eligible 
seniors on waiting lists for each unit of available housing. In 
America, it is unacceptable that our Greatest Generation is faced with 
this shortage. HUD's section 202 program is the largest housing program 
specifically dedicated to serving the elderly, with over 268,000 units 
for seniors.
  Madam Speaker, housing and transportation are two areas that 
absolutely must be priorities and that are essential during a recovery. 
The funding that H.R. 5850 provides for these programs will ensure that 
our economy continues to rebound and that out-of-work Americans are 
able to find jobs and to afford housing.
  Again, I want to stress that the committee has produced a bill that 
makes critical investments, which I have highlighted, and that it 
manages to do so while, at the same time, spending $500 million less 
overall on these agencies during the current fiscal year. During these 
tough economic times, American families have been forced to cut back 
and tighten their belts. We need to ensure that the Federal Government 
and agencies are following their example and doing so well. H.R. 5850 
holds the Federal Government to that standard.
  I urge my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to support it. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the 
rule.
  Mr. BROWN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
this rule.
  By limiting debate and preventing many fiscally responsible 
amendments, the House of Representatives has missed a real opportunity 
to reign in federal spending.
  I submitted nine very simple, common sense amendments to this 
legislation that were dismissed by this leadership.
  Is the majority leadership so afraid of making their Members vote 
against such common sense measures as cutting this bill by a half-
percent that they wouldn't even allow for consideration?
  At a time when the American people are crying out to Congress for 
fiscal restraint, crying out that we tighten our purse strings, how can 
we in good conscience rule a simple half penny on the dollar cut out of 
order?
  I also submitted an amendment that would have not allowed any money 
from this bill to be spent on art work that will be displayed in Dulles 
Metro Stations.
  Providing art work for currently non-existent metro stations clearly 
should not be a Federal priority.
  But alas, this amendment was also ruled out of order.
  If we can not spend more than 1 hour debating an appropriations bill 
that allocates billions of dollars, nor have the opportunity to amend 
and cut some of that spending, then I would suggest that our priorities 
on what deserves time on this very floor are severely misplaced.
  Throughout this bill we can see countless examples of spending 
taxpayers' hard earned money on programs that, very simply, should not 
be receiving one cent.
  These restrictive rules are doing nothing but stopping legitimate 
debate on numerous programs and earmarks that most of us know should 
not be included.
  And the people who are experiencing the greatest disservice are the 
American People; our constituents.
  This is not the way that this distinguished body should be conducting 
the affairs of the Republic.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1569 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon the adoption of this resoluion the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     5885) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to terminate 
     the advance payment of the earned income tax credit. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their respective 
     designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may

[[Page H6297]]

     have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill. Clause 1(c) of 
     rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 5885.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. ARCURI. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand 
the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________